User talk:Dirk P Broer

322 Sqn RAF
You are correct that 322 Sqn was NOT stationed at West Malling in 1940 - it was in fact during 1944, which I have now amended. Many thanks, Lynbarn 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at 322 sqn page nowDirk P Broer 00:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Help
A mutual Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.
 * Mutual friend? I never had the honor yet to meet him. Could find most of his not yet properly cited entries in Francillon's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. His interest in the plane can well be explained by the mutual engine the Ki-61 and the Macchi C.202 had. That he likes to cite Italian sources can hardly be put against him, but some of his remarks are indeed very POV. I can e.g. think of more lethal Japanese aircraft than the Ki.100-II-KAI during the closing stages of WW2.Dirk P Broer 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He sure is very active I noticed when looking up on Savoia-Marchetti aircraft..Dirk P Broer 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User page
Dirk, it would be useful for you to have a user page because where will you hang this? Wikiwings in recognition of your knowledgeable contribution to aviation articles. -Bzuk FWIW Bzuk 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the reward! I made a first try for a user page, there will be more to follow (I do e.g. also book reviews on Amazon.co and Amazon.co.uk, www.modelingmadness.com and publish at the yahoo speedskating mail-list). Dirk P Broer 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk
Hi Dirk! I just wanted to let you know that I've reverted the COBOL article to an earlier version from where you had done edits. This was because there was an IP systematically removing information, and your edits removed properly formatted (but incorrectly placed) references, so I'm going to go and fix all of the references in the article now, adding all yours back in. However, I would really love it if, since you know about the programming language, you could properly add the references to the article in the places they belong. Also, forgive me if you already know how, but the way to properly format citations using the footnote style (and the Wikipedia function of automatically populating the References section) can be found on the Citation templates page. Hope you don't mind! Ariel ♥ Gold 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I learned my programming with COBOL 85. Glad to be able to document it before it gets lost into digital oblivion.Dirk P Broer 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay Wiki went wonkers when I was working on it, but I've formatted all the references, and just "generally" added them in, for instance, articles or books that seemed to be about the history, I placed somewhere in the history section, books that were about the continuation of COBOL I placed in the end. You'll see where they are, which book it is, etc. in the ref section, and if you're familiar enough with the publication, perhaps you could find a better place to place them. And I really appreciate you taking a look at it, as I'm honestly completely clueless about the language/history. Thanks! Ariel ♥ Gold 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reflist formatting
I saw your edit to F4F Wildcat, changing from to. What's the effect of changing it? Please don't think I'm complaining; I've seen this done before, and I simply wonder about the coding. Nyttend 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw this as I was replying above, and I'll just tell you that it is a 2 column vs 1 column. You can use which is the same as  (see that for more options), or you can use  . Often a 2 column will look better, and read better, especially with articles that have many references. Hope that helps (and sorry to butt in!) Ariel ♥  Gold 18:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the will only work in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers, and Safari though the feature is included in CSS3, so it should work for a larger number of browsers in the future.Dirk P Broer 00:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe
That you call precisely when and how i write non neutral statements. Maybe you can explain me what hell is wrong with the CF-104, how i can be accused to not give sources despite i link the page of Joe Baugher, and how BillBC can say that i don't give sources. And finally, apart to learn something about the stuff i write -that resembles to you NNPOV- you also start to learn that my user page is not my talk page. Writing in the first can be called 'vandalism'. So go figure, about rules of wiki there must been someone more prepared than you to teach me, right?--Stefanomencarelli 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian A-24 Banshee?
See discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SBD_Dauntless#Aussie_A-24B_Banshees.3F I have also added more significant information about the A-24 Banshee and even uploaded an image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBD_Dauntless -TabooTikiGod 12:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New References format
Hi, Dirk, noticed you are on a crusade to clean up some of the wonky reference formats. Good on 'ya. I wonder if you could standardize on using the following:

Belgian Gladiator losses
Hi Dirk. Does the two books you cited for the heavy Belgian Gloster Gladiator losses have any info of how many Gladiators the Belgians lost, and perhaps what losses they incurred on the Germans? Manxruler (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spencer claims they were eventually all destroyed, while two Belgians pilots (Sgt. Rolin in G-22 and the pilot of G-32) each claimed one aircraft damaged (page 32, 1st and 2nd column). Crawford also believes all Gladiators were destroyed (the last in straffing by Bf 109's of JG/27) and he gives the name of the pilot of G-32: Sgt. Winand. gives additional detail of the Belgian use of the Gladiator in combat. Dirk P Broer (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
Hi there - I see you have contributed to the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction article. If I look on Amazon, I see where this book was released in Dec 1978 with an introduction by Issaac Asimov and with a Consultant Editor of Robert Holdstock. Do you think whoever has written the page identified only the second edition information in the main article? I would update it myself, but I'd rather get a second opinon before editing... Maybe I should put this on the talk page of the article or just edit without worrying - it can always be reverted. Npd2983 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to me the article *IS* about the 2nd edition, and mentions the 1st as part of it's history, just as the 3rd edition is mentioned (and the CD-Rom version of the 2nd edition). BTW: the 2nd edition comes in two versions! (one with errata)Dirk P Broer (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your viewpoint. -npd2983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.212.77 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Published not publised?
Dirk, before I have to trail after you on your revisions to bibliographies, check the spelling on the "drop in" edit. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Hi Bill, you lost me spelling on the "drop in" edit?Dirk P Broer (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * publised argh!Dirk P Broer (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blohm&Voss aircraft designation
Please stop changing the aircraft designations from the correct BV to the wrong Bv. Blohm&Voss was the only aircraft manufacturer to receive two capital letters for the manufacturer prefix. Many books have this wrong. --Denniss (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a reliable source to point out the wrongness of Bv?Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Original sources are hard to obtain but I have at least an image of an aircraft data card (Flugzeugtypenblatt) of a BV 138 clearly showing to uppercase letters. See also here --Denniss (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I stand correctedDirk P Broer (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ki-61 ref
I deleted the spurious link because it was in the middle of a completely different reference - (to Japanese Aircraft of The Pacific War)and hence spurious to that reference - the site itself is an appropriate source and is referenced elsewhere in the article. Iif it is intended to reference both, then they should be separate cites.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the original author added the link because Francillon's book is mentioned as a source for Vectorsite (sort of meta-reference citing)Dirk P Broer (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Polikarpov I-180
Dirk, please check this article as a number of the references that you added have been removed as being from a "non-contributing" editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I restored it and send the person a mail about it.Dirk P Broer (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Military Barnstar
In recognition for your efforts to add references to military avaition sites I'd like to present you with a Military Barnstar. Please keep helping to make us all honest brokers! Ndunruh (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass edits to Bibliography sections
What's with adding loads of books into the bibliography sections of articles when those books have had no influence on the article at all? It's almost like spam. I just looked at the first page of your contribs and that's almost all over your last 100 edits - just adding references to articles in which you have never edited. Is it not misleading to say those books were used as references when they weren't?--Celtus (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that my message came out so insulting.--Celtus (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Be assured, I'll be using the cited references to improve the articles in the future. Maurer Maurer's "Aïr Force Combat Units of World War I1" has been used by previous author(s), literally, sometimes without mentioning the source. For British units I am building a reference library, with some units I've done far more than just adding titles to the bibliography section, this number will only grow.Dirk P Broer (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No. 107 Squadron RAF
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of No. 107 Squadron RAF, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.basher82.nl/search/107sqnRAF.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to No. 107 Squadron RAF.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.

Happy Dirk P Broer's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns, No. 107 Squadron RAF
Hi. This article was automatically listed for review at the copyright problems noticeboard when Corensearchbot tagged it. Review discloses that several paragraphs are almost verbatim to material previously published at. The material is hosted there under claim of crown copyright, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that material be released for modification as well as reuse. I've blanked the article for now to permit time to clarify the matter. If this material can't be verified to have been taken from a source that is public domain or otherwise licensed compatibly, it will need to be rewritten in original language, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * The first mentioned paragraph has been changed

In March 1941, the squadron was loaned to Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to Bomber Command, it continued its low-level daylight raids until August, when the air echelon was sent to Malta. From here it carried out anti-shipping missions around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coastline. However, as the air defence of the island began to take priority, the detachment was withdrawn and disbanded on 12 January 1942.

versus

From March till May 1941, the squadron on loan to RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to RAF Bomber Command, it took up its low-level daylight raids again until August, when the air echelon was sent to Malta. From there it carried out anti-shipping missions around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coastline. However, as the air defence of Sicily began to take priority, the detachment was withdrawn and disbanded on 12 January 1942.


 * The second paragraph now contains a direct link to the source http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn106-110.htm


 * The 3rd paragraph you mention is twice as long as the original:

With the establishment of Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile sites, the designated operating squadron originally controlled three sites. However, it was soon decided to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and on 22 July 1959, 'C' Flight of No 77 Squadron at Tuddenham was redesignated as No 107 Squadron. It finally disbanded on 10 July 1963.

versus

With the establishment of Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile sites, the designated operating squadrons each originally controlled three sites. It was soon decided however to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and to be effective from on 22 July 1959, 'C' Flight of No. 77 Squadron RAF at Tuddenham was redesignated as No. 107 Squadron RAF. The upcoming ICBM missiles soon made the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile obsolete, and in 1962 the Minister of Defence announced the phase-out of the Thor missiles. The squadron therefore disbanded once again, at Tuddenham on 10 July 1963.

If this is not enough, just drop me a line Dirk P Broer (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm away from my computer and on a very spotty connection, so I can't do the usual links I would offer here for fear of losing it all. From what I can see, it seems that material has not been completely rewritten in original language, but instead may be derivative of the original. Copyright covers more than complete duplication of a source; it also covers fragmented literal similarity and comprehensive non-literal similarity. If it were only a matter of specific vocabulary, translations from one language to another would be legal, since pretty much by definition they change every word. But copyright covers both language and the structure of the original. (There's a little more on this on my userpage at User:Moonriddengirl.)


 * Here's the current version you have in the article. I am bolding what seems to be precisely duplicated runs from the original, because that may make the problem a bit more clear. Where only one word seems to have been added, I've put it in [brackets] rather than removing bolding, just to make clear that the deviation from the original is only a single word (or letter) addition.
 * "From March till May 1941, the squadron on loan to RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to [RAF] Bomber Command, it took up its low-level daylight raids [again] until August, when the air echelon was sent to Malta. From [t]here it carried out anti-shipping missions around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coastline. However, as the air defence of Sicily began to take priority, the detachment was withdrawn and disbanded on 12 January 1942."
 * I'm not daring to double check at the moment, but I think that's about right.


 * Completely rewriting such material is a pain in the neck, but unfortunately except when we can use limited quotations in accordance with WP:NFC, we just don't have a choice. If the source is non-free, we have to rewrite the majority of it completely. So that the article will not constitute an unauthorized derivative work, it should be rewritten in the temporary space that is now linked from the article's front. When it's rewritten, we can just replace the original. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may be helpful, but it's a bit basic. Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".


 * I'll be happy to discuss this further when I'm home or on a better internet connection. :) I'm going to try to save now before I lose my chance, and please forgive typos. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit having used RAFweb as the basis for my article. I do believe however that I have made more alterations to the original text than you give me credit for. Dirk P Broer (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there an error in the bolded section I've made above? I copied your text from the article, but as I noted when I wrote it, my connection is spotty, so I haven't dared double check as much as I usually would. That bolding seems to indicate substantial similarity remaining. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I already staed above, the original text is:

"In March 1941, the squadron was loaned to Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to Bomber Command, it continued its low-level daylight raids until August, when the air echelon was sent to Malta. From here it carried out anti-shipping missions around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coastline.  However, as the air defence of the island began to take priority, the detachment  was withdrawn and disbanded on 12 January 1942."

My most recent version is: " From March till May 1941, the squadron was on loan to RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to RAF Bomber Command, it took up its low-level daylight raids again. The squadron did so until August of that year, when the aircraft of the unit and their pilots -the air detachment of the squadron- were sent to Malta. From there anti-shipping missions were carried out around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coast. However, as the air defence of Sicily began to take priority, the air detachment was withdrawn and disbanded at Luqa on 12 January 1942. Losses among the squadron had been so heavy that at one time the squadron was commanded by a sergeant, I.G. Broom. "


 * Thanks for letting me know about additional revisions. I'll make reviewing it a priority for the morning (eastern). :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Version in temporary space
Okay, I've run Talk:No. 107 Squadron RAF/Temp through my mechanical detector. Some of the material does seem to be thoroughly rewritten, but I'm afraid that there are continuing passages of concerns. It may help to see the issue by examining these passages sentence by sentence, with the article first and the source second:
 * "With the establishment of Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile sites, the designated operating squadrons each originally controlled three sites"
 * "With the establishment of Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile sites, the designated operating squadron originally controlled three sites."

The only difference here is that you have added the word "each."


 * "It was soon decided however to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and to be effective from on 22 July 1959, 'C' Flight of No. 77 Squadron RAF at Tuddenham was redesignated as No. 107 Squadron RAF."
 * "However, it was soon decided to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and on 22 July 1959, 'C' Flight of No 77 Squadron at Tuddenham was redesignated as No 107 Squadron."

The first phrase is identical, except that the word "however" has been moved. It picks up again with "on 22 July 1959" through the end, except that you've added the RAF in two places.


 * "The day after the war was declared, on 4 September 1939, the squadron provided four aircraft to the RAF's first bombing raid of the war against enemy ships in Wilhelmshaven, and of these four only one returned...."
 * "The day after war was declared, 4 September 1939, the squadron provided four aircraft to the RAF's first bombing raid of the war against enemy ships in Wilhelmshaven, of these four only one returned."

You've added the words "the", "on" and "and." Otherwise, this passage is identical.


 * "Shortly thereafter the squadron received a new Commanding Officer, Wing Commander Basil Embry, who would be shot down the following year, escaping custody and making it back to Britain and the squadron via Gibraltar. By the end of the war he would the commander of No. 2 Group RAF...."
 * "Shortly after this the squadron received a new CO, Wing Commander Basil Embry, who would be shot down the following year, escape from custody, make it back to Britain via Gibraltar and by the end of the war be commanding No 2 Group."

You've altered the word "after" to "thereafter", spelled out CO, transformed "escape from" to "escaping" and "make" to "making", adding the two words "the squadron" and minimally altered the end.


 * "In April 1940 the squadron carried out attacks in Norway and following the Dunkirk evacuation attacked shipping concentrations in the Channel ports."
 * "In April 1940 the squadron carried out attacks in Norway and following the Dunkirk evacuation attacked barge concentrations in the Channel ports."

You've changed the word "barge" to the word "shipping."


 * "...the squadron was on loan to RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to RAF Bomber Command, it took up its low-level daylight raids..."
 * "... the squadron was loaned to Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to Bomber Command, it continued its low-level daylight raids..."

You've changed the word "loaned" to "on loan", added RAF twice, changed "continued" to "took up."

Rewriting from scratch means changing language and structure. Facts are not copyrightable, but the way they are expressed and the order of organization can be. Bare information may not be copyrightable: "John Smith was born on December 29, 2009" is not copyrightable. A sentence like "With the establishment of Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile sites, the designated operating squadron originally controlled three sites" is amply creative enough to clear the intentionally low threshold set by the US courts that control Wikipedia.

I don't believe given such close similarity in the passages that were triggered as matches that this rewrite is usable as it is. However, I will ask a second opinion from another copyright admin. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dirk. Moonriddengirl asked me to take a look at the revised copy for this article. I'm afraid that I must agree with her assessment. The alterations that have been are not enough to avoid it being a derivative of the original source. The determining factor is that we can still so clearly match the WP article with a source.


 * I really appreciate the efforts you're making to correct this. Especially because cases like this are difficult to correct -- it often comes across as subjective interpretation and the extent to which changes must be made are not always precisely apparent.


 * That is why we often suggest rewriting the article from scratch. One method is to read the sources in their entirety (I see you have used some fine ones like Moyes, Halley and Northway). Then set the sources away, and write the sections in your own words only from memory. Afterward, read the sources to make certain that your version matches the facts and add the citations. This usually creates an entirely original article -- and any remaining similarities are only due to relating the same facts.


 * By the way, I like these RAF articles you are building -- and those photo additions are great. Good luck with the revision. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll come check it out after I chip a bit more at the CP backlog. The whole idea of vacations...come home to find your work waiting and backlogged? Very relaxing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest version
Hi. Your rewrite is in some places very good.

But I'm a little confused by this, as you don't seem to have addressed the problem. Of your last version (now deleted), I said the following:

The most recent version says:
 * "It was soon decided however to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and to be effective from on 22 July 1959, 'C' flight of 77 squadron was redesignated as No. 107 Squadron RAF"
 * "However, it was soon decided to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and on 22 July 1959, 'C' Flight of No 77 Squadron at Tuddenham was redesignated as No 107 Squadron.

The first phrase remains identical, except that the word "however" has been moved. The first 15 words of that sentence are copied verbatim (notwithstanding that small rearranging) from the source. I have bolded the language in the original sentence that is duplicated in your rewrite. As you can see, while you have omitted "at Tuddenham" you have otherwise replicated the entire sentence. While you've added a few words, this does not constitute rewriting in original language.

To rewrite in original language, you might consider first culling the essential facts:
 * Separate squadron identities
 * 'C' Flight redesignated 107 Squadron on 22 July 1959

Looking at the material you've got around it, you might integrate that something like:

If you feel that following their language is for some reason essential to the article, you must follow WP:NFC, which requires clearly marking the copied text with quotation marks and attributing it. But I'm not sure that we need their original language, since it can be rephrased, so such a quotation may not be defensible fair use.

If you will address that issue, then all of the latest identified issues will be sufficiently rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too! Thank you for the rewrite. I have put it in place. I've also collapsed the monster thread to stop it swallowing your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

569 Squadron RAF
Hi, I'm just worried that something that was disbanded before creation could be lacking in notability. It is akin to proposing a company, and then disbanding it before people are hired. Simply because it has a website does not mean it is notable. It didn't see any planes, it was a simple proposal, and it was canceled before an official standup could take place. I'm just concerned. I didn't want to tag it, but more references could be useful. Thanks! -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 20:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's about No. 569 Squadron RAF, not 566. I share your ideas about notability, I was just filling up the template. I think you should mention it to the template editor as well. The same holds for No. 597 Squadron RAF and a squadron whose number I am currently forgotten, but which has as only claim to fame ever having been alloted a squadron code.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

6 Group aircraft
Hi Dirk, In your edit to this article you mentioned that these aircraft were used by 6 Group: 	British Aircraft Eagle, Foster Wikner Wicko, Airspeed Oxford. I can't find any mention of these aircraft being used by 6 Group in any of my references. You wouldn't happen to have any more information on this? If you did, it may be valuable to expound on their use. If the edit was in error, we need to remove mention of the aircraft. BC talk to me  19:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, I've added the Order of Battle for April 1943 from Ken Delve's "Sourcebook of the RAF", which has these aircraft with the units that used them. A Bomber Group is more than just the sum of its operational bomber squadronsDirk P Broer (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great!! Your additional info. really helps to flesh out the history. I wish I had that ref. All the best.-- BC talk to me  01:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK: Hiromichi Shinohara
Hello, Dirk P Broer. I've nominated this article by you for DYK on MainPage. You can see the nomination here. Please be encouraged to put in a few more footnotes, and more importantly, rephrase the sentences that are too similar to the source before someone at T:TDYK complains about it and the appearance of infringement of copyrights. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hiromichi Shinohara
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cite formats
I still don't see the advantage to writing out when seems much more easier to format; have you tried the format which really does highlight the source in the bibliography. Look at the SNCASE Armagnac article for an example. I have done a number of articles this way, especially in going for GA status. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC).
 * You should try to work with Firefox instead of Internet Explorer and you will see advantages/benefits when editing Wikipedia! This includes the Harvnb template and the reflist|2 or reflist|3 templates Dirk P Broer (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I use only Firefox but I can't see the reason for Harvnb, what is it supposed to do? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On my machine Harvnb|Green|1967|p=509. works just like #refGreen1967|Green 1967]], p. 509., only it is far easier to notate. It highlights just like your example, and it is an official wiki citation template....(as is the method of very elaborate naming the sources using {{cite book|last name= etc. ), which some people think is handy, but I cannot imagine myself exactly why.Dirk P Broer (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it highlights the author, title, but it does not do anything else? As far as I can see, it doen't link to the full bibliographic notation while really goes right to the source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC).
 * If the template requires linking to any of the full book/article/news templates then I am loathe to use it as they are #$%^%)*^ awful. FWiW, something on Wikiwonderland is "official"? Bzuk (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am completely unenlightened by your explanation. Using this Harvnb style is adding a needless complication to a perfectly straight forward cite format; it has added nothing to the Bristol Beaufort article - as far as I can tell (and I use Firefox) all that happens when clicking on the highlighted cites is nothing - they just look blue. It might work for you and your computer set-up, but that doesn't necessarily mean it works for all. I've just spent a great deal of time reverting back to Chicago style because I can see no compelling reason to use Harvb, particularly because I will be adding new info and cites. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is so much more complicated in notating Harvnb|Green|1967|p=509. instead of Green 1967, p. 509., which will not offer a highlighted reference in the citations when you click upon the number in the text? Nobody is asking you to click a highighted source. The Harvnb format has as additional advantage that you need to supply a page number, something that quite a few editors using the Chicago style tend to forget.Dirk P Broer (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I find when I click on a simple Chicago cite such as Green 1967, p. 509. that it highlights quite nicely, - try Supermarine Spitfire which is a GA without needing the Harvb additions; again, I see no compelling need for this, which does add complication to formatting; it is far easier to type Green 1967, p. 509. than it is to type Harvnb|Green|1967|p=509. Again, I ask, is there a compelling need to expect everyone else editing these articles to use your format? Minorhistorian (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Amongst others, your favorite citation format leads to things like ref Gueli, Marco. "Spitfire con Coccarde Italiane." Storia Militare magazine, n.62. Parma: Albertelli editions, pp. 4–10. /ref in the MC.205 article (ref 26). Some editors take just too much freedom with the free format Chicago style, and are not forced into a certain standard by it.87.212.10.211 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors can take liberties with any style of formatting; I have experimented with Harvb and it is just as easy to mess it up or miss page numbers; there is still no compelling evidence that the Harvb style is significantly better or more useful and it is a %^&* site harder to type.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Disam?
I do essentially all of my edits via cut and paste. I have a feeling I simply pasted into the wrong spot. I apologize for that. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Speed Skating
Hello, I've noticed you've edited a few speed skating articles. Would you be interested in joining a WikiProject for the sport? I created a proposal where you can vote to support or oppose the creation of such a project! See it here: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Speed Skating.  on camera (t)  04:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merry X-mas and a happy new year to you too! Saw your book Janusz Żurakowski: Legenda przestworzy when on holidays in Poland last summer. Can't read Polish that well though--Dirk P Broer (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No. 204 Squadron RAF - copyvio problem
I've had to blank a large proportion of the article on No. 204 Squadron RAF, as [this addition that you made in 2010 appears to be a close copy of http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn201-205.htm.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To me it looks like you blanked more than twice as much as the article you mention, and you also blanked the template which I populated entirely from other sources. I will go as far as to say that I used the above mentioned site to compose the History section, but no more than that. BTW: I use that exact same infobox with all RAF squadrons and I strongly object against the removal of the tables, for which I am citing sources -which are at my disposal. I would sure like some more clear points as what to phrase differently and I can also point to my sources predating the quoted website (by decades sometimes) and offering that same information, is said website a copy violation in itself then? --talk) 21:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The content you added was a near word-for-word copy of the rafweb website - as such I reverted to a version prior to the addition according to the requirements of copyright violations - I've got Halley 1971 in front of me and the rafweb website is not a copy of that book. If you have carried out similar close paraphasing of rafweb or other websites, then something will need to be done about them as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of the content I added was done using the rafweb website as base. You might also ask what the rafweb website's sources itself have been. The template and tables have been populated with data not from the rafweb website, and I have restored them as such. Again I ask for more clear details as exactly WHAT to rephrase, and when given clear instructions I will act upon them. If not, then you've just lost an editor.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know this is a difficult situation, but when it comes to the using of other website's material word-for-word copying isn't acceptable, it brings the site into collision with copyright law. Use of a source to understand the issue, and from that understanding to write in their own words on the topic is acceptable and encouraged, this is done frequently in academic works and on Wikipedia. However, we cannot copy+paste even a single sentence, it doesn't matter if 80% of the article is from other sources, not a single sentence should be word-for-word the same, as that falls foul of copyright. Basically, every sentence taken from rafweb and put into that article has to be taken out, and either written in the editor's own words, or not included at all. If it isn't a quotation, it shouldn't be word-for-word, ever, as that is illegal, opens the site up to potential court action, and damages reputation - copyright violation scares people, for good reason. We just don't want the site to go under, so we cover ourselves by complying with the law before the violated source sends lawyers over to demand money, and that means removing direct copy+pastes. The wording simply cannot be identical - the notion, the idea, the philosophy and perspective can all be the same with proper attribution, but we cannot copy+paste content off other sites. Kyteto (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will try my utmost to re-phrase the sentences in question, but I was really tought academically to work this way when publishing in a language that is not my own. "Take an existing article and build upon it", they teached me. So some sententences in my article are indeed the same as said webisite, but my actual article is at least trice as long, and unlike the original it also mentions the sources of information, including said website itself (in external links).--Dirk P Broer (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. I was asked to speak on this subject. I'm afraid that whatever you were taught elsewhere about publishing in a language that is not your own, on Wikipedia you cannot create articles by taking existing articles and building upon them, unless your source is public domain or compatibly licensed. Even then you have to acknowledge that you have copied content to avoid issues under Plagiarism. Adding information to your source runs the risk of creating a derivative work. Providing a link to the source does not make a difference. As I mentioned to you in 2009, Close paraphrasing includes some suggestions for avoiding these issues. All information you take from non-free sources such as this one must be put in your own words and structure, except for brief and clearly marked quotations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Boulton Paul Defiant
Hi Dirk! Way back in 2007, you added a reference to this article (specifically: Hall, Alan W. and Thomas, Andrew. Boulton Paul defiant, Warpaint Series No.42. Luton, Bedfordshire: Warpaint Books Ltd., 2003. ISBN X-9999-0042X.). The ISBN is unfortunately invalid (probably just a typo). I tried searching online, but was unable to find the book, so I was hoping you would still have access to it and would be willing to double check? The ISBN is also listed as a reference here. Many thanks, Storkk (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find it (without ISBN) here and here (with the faulty ISBN).--Dirk P Broer (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dirk - I'm not sure what to do in this case, so I'll just leave it alone. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The book itself mentions no ISBN (or ISSN), nor does it's publisher. Feel free to delete it, if the ISBN is invalid.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your help! Storkk (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Felix Darley birth year
Dirk, I removed a couple edits of yours to F. O. C. Darley's birth year. No offense is meant but I'm hoping to engage on the talk page of the article to figure out how to proceed with the competing sources. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for 401st Air Expeditionary Wing
An article that you have been involved in editing, 401st Air Expeditionary Wing, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RAF Nimrod Squadrons
Template:RAF Nimrod Squadrons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)